My view on Prop 2

“Michael, when are you going to blog about Prop 2? That’s a real election issue that will influence what you eat.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about this “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” on the November ballot. The initiative would ban farmers from raising egg-producing poultry, calves and pregnant pigs in small cages.

The “yes” argument centers on the idea that confining animals in small cages is inhumane. They spend their entire life in confinement and are not able to turn around freely, lie down and fully extend their limbs. It’s a pretty sobering image.

The proposition is proposed by the Humane Society of the United States and is endorsed by both California senators, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the California Democratic Party and the United Farm Workers, among others.

Other states, including Florida, Oregon, Arizona and Colorado, have passed similar laws dealing with pigs and calves, but not egg-laying hens.

Those wanting us to vote no point to a UC Davis study that found that many egg farmers will be put out of business if the proposition passes. However, the law wouldn’t take effect until 2015, giving the businesses six years to figure out a way to comply. Studying both sides of the argument, I have empathy for the economic impact the passage of this law might have on businesses.

This position is endorsed by groups such as the American Association of Avian Pathologists, American College of Poultry Veterinarians, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the California Black Chamber of Commerce.

Both sides cite health concerns to help defend their position. Like just about everything in the food safety/nutrition area, the studies are unclear and at times contradictory. In the end I can’t see that one is any more risky than the other.

The image of animals being confined swayed me. The cost of humanity is less than the cost of inhumanity. The animals who sustain us deserve a life as comfortable and stress-free as possible. Therefore I plan to vote yes.